Thursday 5 May: 11:00 - 13:00
Organizer: Charlotte Rapporteur: Gerba Leta
Short Scope Note for this conversation
In this theme we will have several short presentations / ’show and tell’ on the what-how-why of some of the different aspects of water and productivity across Nile projects. We very much see each of the topics as building blocks to achieve a better understanding of the system at sub-catchment to basin scale. In the first part of the session we will focus on the main direction of each component and try to demonstrate how these parts fit together, and what we see as the main challenges for each ‘team’. We hope to get input from the wider group on how to address these challenges in the second part of the session.
People, Presenters, Process
We will have several short presentations/’show and tell’ on the what-how-why of some of the different aspects of water and productivity across Nile projects. We will keep the details to a minimum and provide a short overview of the elements listed below to demonstrate how the MONITORING-MONETARISING-MODELLING (in no specific order) of water contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the system at a site and basin level.
Presenters have four slides to explain WHAT HOW WHY and one final slide in which to state the main challenge e.g. the challenge for SWAT may be ‘how to incorporate RMS’. Please try to include scale and up-scaling issues within your presentation. .
Hydro-met monitoring: Birhanu (+props) - 10 mins - Birhanu will outline the field monitoring and mention NPK-Sediment collection.
NPK – sediment: Birhanu, Teklu – not a separate presentation but B & T to mention
H20 productivity – crops and livestock: Amare, Teklu - 15 mins (NO MORE THAN 7 SLIDES INCLUDING ONE CHALLENGE PLEASE) Amare and Teklu will introduce how water use efficiencies and RMS are integral to crop and livestock productivity and set the scene for Kinde who will show how improved productivity can be translated to economic values in ECOSAUT
Hydrological process + impacts: SWAT WB – Dan, Tammo -10 mins The what how why of SWAT at different scales and some ideas on how to incorporate RMS?
Water Resources: WEAP – Solomon (Matthew) 10 mins Solomon will show how WEAP is used for the upscaling of demands and allocations
Remote sensing with GEONETCAST– Essayas 10mins? How remote sensed data could complement green blue water.
Green-Blue water: Holger - 10 mins What SEI will do on B-G
Impact assessment: ECOSAUT – Kinde, Nancy - 10 mins How ECOSAUT brings together SWAT, productivity and can be used to understand tradeoffs in different scenarios between upstream and downstream communities.
Challenges and into discussion – Matthew, Charlotte
Rapporteur Notes from this session
Significant core discussion points (Challenges) were summarized and brought to group discussion from each presentation made under theme 4. Outcome of the group discussion that comprises issues and possible scenarios respective to each challenges are bulleted as below.
Challenge 1: How do we deal with data gaps at field and basin scale, validating the model outputs?
Biophysical data:
• Data can be obtained from hydrology, stream flow + meteorology
• Other data like Crop productivity, Runoff sediment, & Nutrient availability and loss were also mentioned.
Other data related constrains:
• Hydrology data not always measured where it is needed
• Delay to access to data for modelers
• Coverage varies from place to place
• Quality of data varies & also
• Dispersed between institutions
HH level livelihood data: like family size, plot size, number of livestock, income sources, food security status, access to market, credit, inputs, etc, should be tested at sub-basin, and basin level.
Socio-economic data:
• Economic model – needs cost and benefit data.
• Lots of secondary data but always not what is needed /irrelevancy/
• Easy to collect if resource is available for specific locations
Source: secondary data CSA-Agriculture surveys & other national institutions + field survey believed to strengthen validation of the model
Other impression and suggested solutions:
• Data exist but is not shared. There should be willingness to share data among different parts.
• Look possibility for phase I data that is not consolidated so need to harmonize and consolidate data
• National institutions /agency /should be approached or considered for data ( like from ministry of Water Resource, Agriculture, Nile Basin Initiative, Meteorology agency, national research system and other national agencies).
• Necessity of Central data coordination raised for which N2 denoted
• Lack of centrally facilitating GIS to harmonize different data also remarked.
• Raw data released in 6 months and advised only to release official data
• Correlate data between locations/the 3 sites/
• Run sensitivity analysis – identify which data is more important
• Calibration of model and establishment of links has to be done before we have data.
Challenge 2: How do we characterize/aggregate/ and prioritize RMS scenarios especially when we don’t have actual data for measuring the impact of any specific RMS?
• Impact = economic + environmental.
• Prioritize RMS scenarios in to long vs short term suggested vital.
• Scenario is important for some kinds of combination of practices /intervention targeted to different areas in the basin
How to build the scenario is raised. Alternatives suggested:
• Involving the community through different process
• By considering components of scenarios – institutional environment and social aspects, practices and how they change. However, which aspect to be considered is raised as not easy task.
Assumptions: Similarity analysis is suggested important to look at.
Challenge 3: What alternative exists to address scaling out RMS practices and process/impacts to a basin level?
• Site of Scaling out agreed up on to be take place within the Ethiopian part of the Nile basin
• Consider the bio-physical and socio-economic criteria in the suitability analysis at landscape and then up to the basin scale
• Linking the biophysical with LH requires biophysical data like sediment, crop productivity and access to the feedback information
• Use secondary data and combine it with the survey
• Identify parameters in the landscapes where the RMS worked and use those as indicators.
• Focus on spatial pattern of farming system
• Linking RWM changes with productivity and level of adoption
• Adoption vs similarity/suitability/ analysis
• The impact should focus on temporal variability
• Scaling out RWM should built up on existing indigenous practices at landscape/district level-start by modeling existing practices (spatial characteristics)
• Innovation process and community conversation on adoption of RWM
• The change in practices should link to productivity gain
• Scaling out come with good level of adaptation
• The adaptation itself come from innovation process
• Using experiences of others
• Variability impact is important
Challenge 4: What alternative options do we have to link biophysical and Livelihood issues?
• Possible to link biophysical with socio-economic data- here the extent of data flexibility is important
• Community discussion is also important to bring back the feedback from these data.
• RWM scenarios make sure that livelihood consideration are taken in to account
• Link model results to community level could generate two way feedbacks: -innovation platform and beyond.
• Livelihood data input into scenarios/RMS/options
• Run different Livelihood scenarios
• Couple models (eco-hydrological + water management)
• Cannot incorporate all social /economic data in to models but can be part of:
- Developing scenarios that input into models
- Critical review of strategies generated by WEAP
• Can maybe ‘represent’ factors indirectly e.g. price/production
• Link models to qualitative information
• Need to have a bottom-up process
• Disaggregate results of WEAP as much as possible. E.g. men’s + women’s employment
• Use scenarios/ outputs of WEAP (optimal RMS) as a basis for discussion with stakeholders /communities including:
- Trade-off e.g. practicing Conservation Agriculture in the upstream area and evaluate the trade-off livelihood downstream
- Other values beyond economic
• Combine model quantitative + qualitative information (perceptions, access to resources) to identify actions
• Agent-based modeling linked to innovation platform- IP provides local perspectives.
• IPs should feed in to modeling in terms of identifying likely/ realistic combinations of interventions
• Need some way of getting Livelihood/qualitative information beyond the IP sites + discussing scenarios/options to identify options + validate basin-wide strategies.
Theme Reflection
To what extent is the science presented so far or from this session progressing the Nile BDC? gaps, omissions?
Concern that we don’t know what really works where, and why , This must be the basis of scaling out
Science is very well developed, but there are data gaps.
Good presented approach results
Linking modes is not a trivial activity
Integrating various modeling
So many different models, how will they be integrated? Do they need to be?
It seems a huge challenge to match biophysical with socioeconomic needs at appropriate scale (s)
Solid assumptions need to be clear/explicit
Land classification, classes should be the first priorities of the implementation of each practices accordingly
Very informative on the science and presented in a way everyone could understand.
Attempt to compromise system principles in land use unit, sop sequence and basin scale , address environment and economic benefits and considerations
High priority to evaluate where rainwater management interventions are effective and work.
What can we take forward so far or from this session to strengthen project complementarities
In order to move on model calibration more measured data should be collected, projects should start from needs to the users at different levels. Thus the design of the project should be in consultation with the users.
Everyone waiting for everyone else-scheduling issues
Evaluating implications of biophysical change on livelihoods is not clear
When we are talking of agricultural production / productivity, one should also think the natural resources management conservation activities (water harvesting structures)
Good to see intention to integrate with other themes and components
Raised potential links that need to be followed up to make
Clear understanding & willingness to share data
Understand the joint of projects but need further analysis and discussion to come-up practical integration of projects (N2, N3, N4 & N5)
Land unit based approach to link biophysical and livelihood modeling is time saving rather than using 2ndary data.
Scenarios will be critical to link projects/ aspects but need much more though refinement
What progress have we made so far or in this session on core concepts and approaches? suggestions?
Concept on sediment data collection needs to be improved, (involving local people)
Bringing the different RMs practices simple, measurable and prioritize at different scaler is missing
Need further integration of the system components at similar scales – social and biophysical scaler, since theme 4 is more concept that theme to interrelate to N2, N3, N4 & N5 - well conceptual analysis has to be seen.
Upscaliy should be in phases
The scaling up of experiences / process is a base line for the fruitful product for TWs
Modeling efforts - lots going on but big picture is unclear
RMS change still not listed to real opportunities to improve livelihood
Involvement of different projects (NGos) is essential in the overall goal of the NBDC
Concept clear, but practical implementation on application is challenging can well be responsive to variation in contexts
NBDC Science and Reflection Workshop
4-6 May 2011
Theme 4: Water Productivity Impacts
Thursday 5 May: 11:00 - 13:00
Organizer: Charlotte
Rapporteur: Gerba Leta
Short Scope Note for this conversation
In this theme we will have several short presentations / ’show and tell’ on the what-how-why of some of the different aspects of water and productivity across Nile projects. We very much see each of the topics as building blocks to achieve a better understanding of the system at sub-catchment to basin scale. In the first part of the session we will focus on the main direction of each component and try to demonstrate how these parts fit together, and what we see as the main challenges for each ‘team’. We hope to get input from the wider group on how to address these challenges in the second part of the session.
People, Presenters, Process
We will have several short presentations/’show and tell’ on the what-how-why of some of the different aspects of water and productivity across Nile projects. We will keep the details to a minimum and provide a short overview of the elements listed below to demonstrate how the MONITORING-MONETARISING-MODELLING (in no specific order) of water contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the system at a site and basin level.
Presenters have four slides to explain WHAT HOW WHY and one final slide in which to state the main challenge e.g. the challenge for SWAT may be ‘how to incorporate RMS’. Please try to include scale and up-scaling issues within your presentation. .
COMBINED PRESENTATION
Intro – charlotte (+props) – 5 mins
Hydro-met monitoring: Birhanu (+props) - 10 mins - Birhanu will outline the field monitoring and mention NPK-Sediment collection.
NPK – sediment: Birhanu, Teklu – not a separate presentation but B & T to mention
H20 productivity – crops and livestock: Amare, Teklu - 15 mins (NO MORE THAN 7 SLIDES INCLUDING ONE CHALLENGE PLEASE) Amare and Teklu will introduce how water use efficiencies and RMS are integral to crop and livestock productivity and set the scene for Kinde who will show how improved productivity can be translated to economic values in ECOSAUT
Hydrological process + impacts: SWAT WB – Dan, Tammo -10 mins The what how why of SWAT at different scales and some ideas on how to incorporate RMS?
Water Resources: WEAP – Solomon (Matthew) 10 mins Solomon will show how WEAP is used for the upscaling of demands and allocations
Remote sensing with GEONETCAST– Essayas 10mins? How remote sensed data could complement green blue water.
Green-Blue water: Holger - 10 mins What SEI will do on B-G
Impact assessment: ECOSAUT – Kinde, Nancy - 10 mins How ECOSAUT brings together SWAT, productivity and can be used to understand tradeoffs in different scenarios between upstream and downstream communities.
Challenges and into discussion – Matthew, Charlotte
Rapporteur Notes from this session
Significant core discussion points (Challenges) were summarized and brought to group discussion from each presentation made under theme 4. Outcome of the group discussion that comprises issues and possible scenarios respective to each challenges are bulleted as below.
Video reports from the Group work
Challenge 1: How do we deal with data gaps at field and basin scale, validating the model outputs?
Biophysical data:
• Data can be obtained from hydrology, stream flow + meteorology
• Other data like Crop productivity, Runoff sediment, & Nutrient availability and loss were also mentioned.
Other data related constrains:
• Hydrology data not always measured where it is needed
• Delay to access to data for modelers
• Coverage varies from place to place
• Quality of data varies & also
• Dispersed between institutions
HH level livelihood data: like family size, plot size, number of livestock, income sources, food security status, access to market, credit, inputs, etc, should be tested at sub-basin, and basin level.
Socio-economic data:
• Economic model – needs cost and benefit data.
• Lots of secondary data but always not what is needed /irrelevancy/
• Easy to collect if resource is available for specific locations
Source: secondary data CSA-Agriculture surveys & other national institutions + field survey believed to strengthen validation of the model
Other impression and suggested solutions:
• Data exist but is not shared. There should be willingness to share data among different parts.
• Look possibility for phase I data that is not consolidated so need to harmonize and consolidate data
• National institutions /agency /should be approached or considered for data ( like from ministry of Water Resource, Agriculture, Nile Basin Initiative, Meteorology agency, national research system and other national agencies).
• Necessity of Central data coordination raised for which N2 denoted
• Lack of centrally facilitating GIS to harmonize different data also remarked.
• Raw data released in 6 months and advised only to release official data
• Correlate data between locations/the 3 sites/
• Run sensitivity analysis – identify which data is more important
• Calibration of model and establishment of links has to be done before we have data.
Challenge 2: How do we characterize/aggregate/ and prioritize RMS scenarios especially when we don’t have actual data for measuring the impact of any specific RMS?
• Impact = economic + environmental.
• Prioritize RMS scenarios in to long vs short term suggested vital.
• Scenario is important for some kinds of combination of practices /intervention targeted to different areas in the basin
How to build the scenario is raised. Alternatives suggested:
• Involving the community through different process
• By considering components of scenarios – institutional environment and social aspects, practices and how they change. However, which aspect to be considered is raised as not easy task.
Assumptions: Similarity analysis is suggested important to look at.
Challenge 3: What alternative exists to address scaling out RMS practices and process/impacts to a basin level?
• Site of Scaling out agreed up on to be take place within the Ethiopian part of the Nile basin
• Consider the bio-physical and socio-economic criteria in the suitability analysis at landscape and then up to the basin scale
• Linking the biophysical with LH requires biophysical data like sediment, crop productivity and access to the feedback information
• Use secondary data and combine it with the survey
• Identify parameters in the landscapes where the RMS worked and use those as indicators.
• Focus on spatial pattern of farming system
• Linking RWM changes with productivity and level of adoption
• Adoption vs similarity/suitability/ analysis
• The impact should focus on temporal variability
• Scaling out RWM should built up on existing indigenous practices at landscape/district level-start by modeling existing practices (spatial characteristics)
• Innovation process and community conversation on adoption of RWM
• The change in practices should link to productivity gain
• Scaling out come with good level of adaptation
• The adaptation itself come from innovation process
• Using experiences of others
• Variability impact is important
Challenge 4: What alternative options do we have to link biophysical and Livelihood issues?
• Possible to link biophysical with socio-economic data- here the extent of data flexibility is important
• Community discussion is also important to bring back the feedback from these data.
• RWM scenarios make sure that livelihood consideration are taken in to account
• Link model results to community level could generate two way feedbacks: -innovation platform and beyond.
• Livelihood data input into scenarios/RMS/options
• Run different Livelihood scenarios
• Couple models (eco-hydrological + water management)
• Cannot incorporate all social /economic data in to models but can be part of:
- Developing scenarios that input into models
- Critical review of strategies generated by WEAP
• Can maybe ‘represent’ factors indirectly e.g. price/production
• Link models to qualitative information
• Need to have a bottom-up process
• Disaggregate results of WEAP as much as possible. E.g. men’s + women’s employment
• Use scenarios/ outputs of WEAP (optimal RMS) as a basis for discussion with stakeholders /communities including:
- Trade-off e.g. practicing Conservation Agriculture in the upstream area and evaluate the trade-off livelihood downstream
- Other values beyond economic
• Combine model quantitative + qualitative information (perceptions, access to resources) to identify actions
• Agent-based modeling linked to innovation platform- IP provides local perspectives.
• IPs should feed in to modeling in terms of identifying likely/ realistic combinations of interventions
• Need some way of getting Livelihood/qualitative information beyond the IP sites + discussing scenarios/options to identify options + validate basin-wide strategies.
Theme Reflection